DOF.14.11.2011
DOO.24.04.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Dated this, the 24th day of April 2012
CC.No.341/2011
Lalitha Manoharan,
‘Sreelakshmi’
Thannada,
Chala(E) (via)Kadachira 670 621. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.M.K.Sreeja)
1. Abdul Aeez,
Kerala Placement service(Regd)
Govt.Reg.No.CA.327/2007,
Chandranagar,Palakkad 678 007.
2. Subramani, Opposite parties
M/s/Sastha Engineering Works,
84,85(opp)Kasturba Hostal,
Annamalayiyar School Road,
Nagal Nagar, Dindiddgal 624 001.
O R D E R
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to return `70,700 the value of machine with `5000 as compensation with cost.
The case of the complainant is that as induced by the advertisement in Mathrubhoomi daily she had decided to purchase a machine for the production of thread from baniyan waste and given advance amount of `5000 by way of DD dt. 28.3.11 to 1st opposite party and paid `65,700 by way of cash to 2nd opposite party and they have sent the alleged machine through Kerala Road Ways Pvt.Ltd. on 28.4.2011. But the above machine is not functioning and cannot be used for any purpose. Even though the complainant requested to opposite parties 1and 2 several times for repair the machine and make it in working condition, they have not turned up and hence it is clear that the opposite parties were dishonestly induced the complainant and received `70,700 fraudulently. Even though the complainant had issued a lawyer notice and they have received the same have not even replied to the same. So there is unfair trade practice by delivering a faulty machine on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties remains absent, even though proper notice was issued to them and hence they were called absent and set exparte.
The main points to be decided in this case is that whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A5.
The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have cheated her by giving a faulty machine by accepting `70700 as its price and has not repaired even though the same was informed the opposite parties by the complainant. In order to prove her case she has produced notice, photocopy of DD dt.28.3.11, receipt dt.27.4.11 and service tax receipts. The complainant has filed chief affidavit in tune with her pleadings. Ext.A2 shows that 1st opposite party has received `5000 and Ext.A3 shows that 2nd opposite party has received `65700 from the complainant. Ext.A4 and A5 shows that the consignment was delivered to the complainant through Kerala Roadways Pvt.Ltd. so the documents Exts.A2 to A5 substantiate the case of the complainant that she had given `70700 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the machine was delivered to the door of the complainant. But there is no contra evidence before us, since both opposite parties remains absent and set exparte due to their continuous absence. So there is no denial of pleadings. More over absence of the opposite parties itself is unfair trade practice even though proper intimation about the case was given to them. So there is no need to disbelieve the words of the complaint that machinery is not at all functioning even from the first day itself. So we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of both opposite parties for which they are liable to refund `70700 received by them from the complainant with `2000 as compensation and `500 as cost of the proceedings and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund `70,700 (Rupees Seventy thousand seven hundred only) received by them from the complainant with `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and `500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complaint can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1.Brochure issued by OP
A2.Copy of the Demand Draft Taken in favour of OP
A3.Receipt dt.27.4.11 issued by 2nd OP
A4 & 5.Consignment note issued by Kerala Road Ways Ltd.
dt. 28.4.2011
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
